If anyone is promoting James Risen's book, it is not the New York Times, but Gabriel Sherman and the New York Observer.

In his second piece on the connection between Risen's book State of War and the editors at the Times, Sherman fuels the media attention on the (already overplayed) story, to report that Risen asked NYT editors to sign a nondisclosure agreement before viewing his book's contents. Some editors didn't even see the book until after the paper ran the story:

Through several months in late 2005, Mr. Risen and bureau chief Phil Taubman had clashed over whether Times editors would get a preview of the book’s closely guarded contents, sources said. It was not until Dec. 27—11 days after the wiretapping story had run—that Mr. Risen relented and allowed Mr. Taubman to see the manuscript.

This week, it seems as though the reporter is going back on his previous reports of promotional connections (which, understandably, he blames on Matt Drudge) to say that, actually, the Times published the story because they didn't know whether or not N.S.A info would be in Risen's book. (It's ok, we're yawning, too.)

… sources with knowledge of the internal debate at The Times said that editors, unsure what Mr. Risen’s book might say, pressed to publish the story before the end of the year.

Still scandalous? Of course. The Times held onto that damn story for a year. Still, we expected something juicier than a non-disclosure agreement from a story on the NYT. After all, what other paper spends $1.7 million and counting on reporters they don't even like that much?

Risen Gave Times A Non-Disclosure On Wiretap Book [Gabriel Sherman, NYO]
Earlier: People are still talking about James Risen's book?